Would it be acceptable to develop a shim layer toree can link to that and the provider is dropped in at runtime like the jdbc interface?
On Thursday, May 19, 2016, Craig Russell <craig.russ...@oracle.com> wrote: > I found Jim’s message from February 24 in which he says that for one > release, he’s ok with having the LGPL dependency. > > Given that substantial progress has been made and continues to be made on > getting the dependency relicensed, I expect that asking for permission for > another release in the incubator with the same LGPL dependency should also > be granted. > > Craig > > > On May 19, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Gino Bustelo <g...@bustelos.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > "one release constraint" as in we can only have one release with the LGPL > > dependency. No other release until that dependency is resolved. > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Mike Jumper <mike.jum...@guac-dev.org > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > >> On May 19, 2016 10:30 AM, "Gino Bustelo" <g...@bustelos.com > <javascript:;>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I write this to start a discussion about the "One release constraint" > >>> placed on Toree and what I feel is an unreasonable constraint on a > >> project > >>> that is undergoing incubation. A brief background first... > >>> > >>> In Toree we have an LGPL dependency that is not a simple rip an > replace. > >>> The library is JeroMQ and it is a JVM binding to 0MQ. This is THE > >> protocol > >>> layer used in Jupyter between clients and kernels (Toree serves as a > >>> Jupyter kernel). Over the past months, we've worked with the JeroMQ > >>> community to help move along a license change to MPL v2 ( > >>> https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/issues/327). The progress showed huge > >>> promised at the start and we are down to 3 committers out of 31 who > have > >>> not responded. The JeroMQ community is moving towards code remediation. > >>> > >>> In my opinion, this effort shows great inter-OS community cooperation > and > >>> something that should be valued by Apache. Why rewrite and maintain > code > >>> that already exist? Why not allow the process to take place? Isn't that > >>> what the incubation period is for? Allow projects to resolve concerns > >>> before they graduate? > >>> > >>> So my question is, why one release? This has been our biggest > impediment > >> in > >>> putting an official incubation release out. We are ready. We have all > the > >>> disclaimer in place alerting the user that Toree contains LGPL code. > The > >>> biggest concern is releasing and discovering a defect that we would not > >> be > >>> able to fix due to the "One release constraint". > >>> > >>> Again... I just wish to start the discussion and find a resolution that > >>> will allow Toree to properly grow and move forward with its incubation. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Gino > >> > >> Hi Gino, > >> > >> What "one release constraint" are you referring to? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> - Mike > >> > > Craig L Russell > Architect > craig.russ...@oracle.com <javascript:;> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > <javascript:;> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > <javascript:;> > > -- Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check than usual.
